After two legal-aid offices merge under one board of trustees but stay separately run, can a lawyer in one office oppose a lawyer in the other office on behalf of opposing clients?

Plain-English summary

The Newark Legal Services Project and the Essex County Legal Services Corporation each provided civil legal services to the indigent, in Newark and in the rest of Essex County respectively. Each had its own board of trustees, which hired administrators, raised funds, and set policy but never involved itself in individual cases; the staff attorney assigned to a client was that client's attorney. When both parties to a matter were indigent (often in matrimonial cases), a Newark attorney would represent one and an Essex County attorney the other, to avoid a conflict. The Office of Economic Opportunity then required the two projects, while remaining separately administered, to share a single smaller board, and a new corporation, the Essex-Newark Legal Services Project, was formed with one board to receive grants, appoint administrators, and set policy for both components.

The inquirer asked whether attorneys from one project could still oppose attorneys from the other. The Committee distinguished its Opinion 155, which it had likened to one law-firm member representing a husband after another member consulted the wife. Here, by contrast, each component would have its own administrator, would be a separate and completely autonomous division, with no sharing of office space and no possible access to one division's files by members of the other. Based on those facts and limited to them, the Committee anticipated no conflict of interest and held that an attorney from one project may represent one party while an attorney from the other project represents an opposing party.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. The imputed-disqualification question it addressed is now treated under RPC 1.10 (imputation) and RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a shared board of trustees impute one office's clients to the other?

A: Not on these facts. The Committee held that because the divisions stayed autonomous, with separate administrators and no shared files or space, the common board did not create a conflict.

Q: What facts were essential to the conclusion?

A: Separate administration, separate and autonomous divisions, no sharing of office space, and no access by one division to the other's files. The Committee limited its holding to those facts.

Q: How did this differ from Opinion 155?

A: The Committee read Opinion 155 as analogous to one law firm's members on both sides; here the two components were not a single integrated firm but autonomous divisions, so the same imputation did not follow.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the imputed-disqualification principle (then under DR 5-105) to attorneys housed in affiliated but separately run legal-services divisions. In current New Jersey terms the analysis falls under RPC 1.10 and RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Imputed-disqualification principles as in effect 1972; now MR 1.10 / 1.7 and NJ RPC 1.10 / 1.7

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 155, 92 N.J.L.J. 358 (1969): one firm member representing a husband after another consulted the wife

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 313: Switching Firms Mid-Case and Imputed Disqualification
• NJ ACPE Op. 277: Municipal Legal Assistants and Suing the Municipality

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp241-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

95 N.J.L.J. 717, July 13, 1972

OPINION 241

Merger of City and County Legal Services Projects Representing Opposing Parties

An attorney has made the following inquiry:

The Newark Legal Services Project is a non-profit corporation which provides legal services to the indigent in civil matters in the City of Newark. Until January 1, 1972 the Essex County Legal Services Corporation provided the same services in all of Essex County outside the City of Newark. Each project received 80% of its funds from the federal government and the balance from county, state and private sources. Each project was governed by a separate board of trustees, consisting of attorneys and representatives of the community.

The boards of trustees of the projects were responsible for hiring the project administrators, raising funds and establishing general policies. In no circumstances did the boards of trustees involve themselves with the representation of clients or the handling of individual cases. The staff attorney to whom a client was assigned was the attorney for the client.

The situation arose from time to time, particularly though not limited to matrimonial cases, where both parties were indigent and required representation. In such cases, an attorney on the staff of the Newark Legal Services Project would represent one party and an attorney on the staff of the Essex County Legal Services Corporation would represent the other party, in order to avoid any conflict of interest. The Office of Economic Opportunity has required that commencing January 1, 1972, in the case of the Essex County Legal Services Corporation, and commencing February 1, 1972, in the case of the Newark Legal Services Corporation, the two projects, while remaining separately administered agencies, have a single smaller board of trustees.

In compliance with this directive, a new non-profit corporation was formed, the Essex-Newark Legal Services Project.

The new corporation will have a board of trustees consisting of attorneys and community representatives which will receive grants from the federal government for both components, will appoint administrators for both components and will set general policies.

The inquirer asks:

In these circumstances it is hoped that attorneys from one project can represent one party to a cause, while attorneys from the other project can represent the other party. There seems to be no potential for a conflict of interest to develop in such a situation.

In this Committee's Opinion 155, 92 N.J.L.J. 358 (1969), the factual situation was distinguishable from that presented here. We likened the facts in that case to one member of a law firm representing the husband in a divorce action after another member of the same law firm had consulted with his wife. The facts in the present inquiry indicate that each component will have its own administrator, will be a separate division and will be completely autonomous. There will be no sharing of office space and no possible access to files of one division by members of the other.

Based on the facts submitted, and limited thereto, we anticipate no conflict of interest and therefore hold that an attorney from one project may represent one party to a cause while an attorney from the other project can represent an opposing party.